HPIA
Hofstra Papers in Anthropology
Volume 8, Article #2, 2013
White Racism Theory in America and
Analysis of Discourse on Michael Richards’ Racial Gaffes
by Cory Koff
“I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daylight of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality…I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word”, Martin Luther King, Jr stated. Racism in America is pervasive and persists all these years since he made this brilliant statement. White racism is evident in language. Cognitive anthropologists utilize folk theories in their thinking about white racism in America. “The folk theory is an interpretation, a way of thinking about racism, that is crucial to the perpetuation of White Racist culture.”(Hill, p.4)
Folk theory is a commonly held belief about the world that is not necessarily based on hard scientific fact. It is a model to “label the everyday understandings of the world, found in all societies, that are revealed by ethnographic analysis” (Hill, p.5). Folk theory becomes useful to people as a way of interpreting behavior. They become integrated into everyday living and thinking, even though they are beliefs rather than factual. Jane H. Hill, in The Everyday Language of White Racism, describes how racism is affected and produced by language in the media and by the daily talk of people. This language then sways the way in which people think about labels for groups of people and brings about, or carries on racism. As white people continue to believe in certain stereotyped ideas about race, they carry on the folk theory that is behind white racism. They speak in ways that reveal racism, and as they do, this language continues racism. Hill describes the way in which language plays a huge part in white prejudice.
Jane H. Hill says that “Gaffes often contain exactly the same language as do slurs. However, to label an utterance as a gaffe (or a slip) is to treat its racist meaning as unintentional” (Hill, p. 44). When one utters a racial gaffe, often the individual can be described as not having racist beliefs, but as just having made a mistake or made a slip. The words are asked to be looked at as mistakes. As opposed to a slur, or a clearly intentional use of a racist word or words, a gaffe is less clear-cut. Therefore one focuses on the person and their intention. Is the individual a racist, or was this an actual slip? If the racial gaffe is an error on the part of the speaker, then the individual cannot be held responsible for racist beliefs. The speaker is forgiven for their errors in speech, and defended for these racist comments. The label of a gaffe functions as a protection from being considered a racist. Jane H. Hill states that these language gaffes lead to and carry on white racism. They can be viewed as performatives, or utterances that mean doing not just saying. These utterances involve their audiences, and affect them, as well. One must have respect for the listener, and understand the effect of the racist words on them. As they are reported on in the media, and explanations are made for the slip, the speaker is seen as having made a mistake, and not as having made overt racial remarks that stem from being a racist. However, these racial slips or gaffes affect the way audiences view race, as language affects society. It becomes the narrative of society as it is repeated and reported on.
Michael Richards, actor and comedian who starred on the popular television show Seinfeld, is a stand-up comic. He was performing at The Laugh Factory in Los Angeles in 2006, when he made what was referred to in the media as racial gaffes, after being heckled by African-Americans during his comedy routine. His words to the hecklers were “Shut up! 50 years ago we’d have you hanging upside down with a fucking fork up your ass!” and “You can talk, you can talk, you can talk! You’re brave now motherfucker! Throw his ass out! He’s a nigger, he’s a nigger…Look there’s a nigger!” He also said, as the audience members called out to him that these words were unnecessary, “Well, you interrupted me pal. That’s what happens when you interrupt the white man, don’t you know?”
Richards’ defense of his racist gaffes was that “It was a selfish response. I took it too personally. I should’ve just said, you’re absolutely right, I’m not funny. I’m going to go home and work on my material….and thanks for sticking by me. It meant a lot to me…Inside it still kicks me around a bit”. Interpretation of his explanation is that he got angry at the hecklers and reacted with fury that he regrets. He claims that his racist rant was caused by anger and not by prejudice. “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this”, he said to David Letterman, when he appeared on his Late Show following the incident.
Jane Hill supports the idea of personalist linguistic ideology, which says that “when a speaker speaks, he or she means something”, and “words not only represent the world, they represent the inner states of persons” (Hill, p.89) She refers to covert racist discourse, or the idea that this linguistic ideology tells us we should pay attention to the motive and intentions behind the individual’s words. Dismissing Michael Richards’ words as the mistakes of an angry person, or as a joke, would be missing the unconscious racist beliefs or motives of the individual who spoke the words. Hill further describes referentialist ideology as the idea that the purpose of language is “to label a pre-existing world and to convey true statements about it.”(Hill, p.90) This ideology means that what we utter is a reflection of what we believe to be true about the world.
The racist language used by Michael Richards was followed by mass media reporting and processing of the event. Jane Hill refers to this reaction by the media as moral panic, or “mass media firestorms where the potentially offensive utterance is repeated again and again over days and even weeks, both by those who intend to discredit the speaker and by those who intend to support and defend him.”(Hill. P.92) She explains that this moral panic occurs because it is very upsetting to White Americans when a White public figure that they admire makes such a racist gaffe. The public then goes into a frenzy attempting to explain, blame or defend the behavior. In Michael Richards’ case, this was no exception. The media went into a frenzy of reporting about this event in newspapers, on television, and in online blogs.
The methodology used to research the idea of white racism within the analytic framework of Jane Hill, was to collect data from mass media. Data was collected on the Michael Richards racist gaffe by gathering responses from television, online newspapers, video footage and blogs. Sources for data collected were msnbc.com, TMZ.com, Chicagotribune.com, CBSnews.com, The Late Show with David Letterman, nytimes.com, angryaussie.wordpress.com, and Youtube.com. In addition, on campus peers were surveyed for their oral responses to the Michael Richards gaffes.
CBS News reported about Michael Richards’ apology for his racist gaffes on The Late Show with David Letterman. On the television program, Richards apologized by saying he was “deeply, deeply sorry”. However, he went on to state that “I do a lot of free association—it’s spontaneous, I go into character”. Ideological multiplicity, as described by Jane Hill, is that “the distinctive discourses appropriate to different contexts in a single society may express diverse linguistic ideologies” (Hill, p.91) Hill states “White speakers very often claim that they were only joking when interlocutors accuse them of having made a racist utterance” (Hill, p.92). Richards appears to be making an attempt at explaining or defending his language as not indicating his true feelings or beliefs about African-Americans, but rather a role he was playing on stage as a comedian. Looking at this statement through the view of personalist ideology, Jane Hill suggested that White Americans apply their own ideology to understand racist language. This is Michael Richards attempt to separate himself from his racist comments, and ease the moral panic of White America. CBS News reported Jerry Seinfeld’s support for Richards by stating that he said that he is “sick over this horrible, horrible mistake”. This statement by Seinfeld follows the moral panic theory of the public needing to believe that this revered comedian is not a racist, as they are not racists. The online responses to this CBS News report were predominantly supportive of Richards, while at the same time upset by his comments. One response by cobra25674 says “I believe Richards when he says his outburst was anger motivated and not racism. Come people, get off the poor me, look what whitey has done to me, pick up your self esteem and move on”. Another, jlc808 says “I have worked in comedy clubs, and they often attract the worst kind of patron. Rude, discourteous and insensitive so I fully understand him losing his temper…Grow some thicker skin and realize that people are, and will continue to be, insensitive.” These defenses of Michael Richards’ words are indicative of the desire to separate oneself from white racism, while at the same time being tolerant of it and continuing it, by excusing the behavior. It fits with Jane Hill’s explanation of the language of racism and gaffes.
MSNBC.com reported on the Michael Richards incident and compared it to a time when the actor Mel Gibson said anti-Semitic comments. The reporter wrote that the similarity between the two is that in both cases the speakers claimed to not be racist and that “despite what came out of his mouth, that’s not what is inside him”. The idea is supporting Richards’ explanation that his remarks were out of anger, but do not reflect racism within him. Personalist ideology says that “each individual has an invisible interior self which is the site of beliefs and intentions and emotional states such as love and hatred” (Hill, p.88). Yet the support seems to be for the idea that although Richards made these angry comments, they do not indicate that he is a racist. This fits with the folk theory of racism, or the desire to think about these comments in a way that allows us to continue racism. Hill says “The folk theory is an interpretation, a way of thinking about racism, that is crucial to the perpetuation of White racist culture” (Hill, p.4)
The Chicago Tribune reporter Kim Richardson seems to take a harder look at the deeper meaning of the Michael Richards gaffes, and opposes the use of personalist ideology. She states “I believe that these comments from Michael Richards were indeed intentional and deliberate. They were said in a way to be hurtful and spiteful. Michael Richards made those comments because that is how he feels. Period.” She is unwilling to excuse or explain away his comments as attempts at humor or anger outbursts unrelated to how he really feels about race. She states “There is no way I would forgive him for his remarks, even if he is apologizing. I believe he is apologizing because he has been caught on tape, not because he is genuinely sorry.” She dismisses his apologies and labels him as a racist, unable to separate what he says from who is really is, supporting personalist linguistic ideology.
The online blog Parablemania.com by Jeremy Pierce demonstrates the desire to make excuses for Richards’ gaffes. He writes “Isn’t it possible that he was just willing to use a racial dynamic in a pretty immoral way to say hurtful things whose content he doesn’t actually agree with?” He further puts forward the opinion that “I just think it’s a bad idea to attribute certain emotions or views to him that may or may not be true, when there are alternative interpretations that are pretty plausible”. One person, nickesola responds by saying “He says he’s not racist. He would know before anyone else. How would you like to be told why you do the things you do?” Another person, Ryan, writes that “This is absolutely uncalled for. But Blacks need to chill out”. The remarks are not condoned, but excuses are made and blame is placed on the victims for “overreacting”.
On the online blog Angryaussie.wordpress.com, data was collected about the Michael Richards’ gaffes from the author of the blog and responding readers of it. The author writes “he certainly has racist tendencies”, but then goes on to look at them in the context of comedy. He states “If you’re going to use racial epithets, make sure you know where you’re going with the routine”. Here, with this last statement is the excuse and explanation for the gaffes as failed comedy attempts. The responses to this blog were supportive of the idea of looking at the racial rant in the context of poor comedy. One blogger, Mr. Angry, writes “I do think the biggest point is he’s no good at standup-you can’t do risky material if you’re no good”. Another writer, Who Cares? writes “Black people are way too sensitive about that stupid word.” Scooter writes “There is no good excuse for such behavior. The only thing I can think of is that he’s nuts or is on drugs”, thus making excuses for his racist language. Many of the responses to this blog are openly racist, writing in an anonymous forum, and supporting the idea of the folk theory of white racism. One example of such is by Bob, who writes “When will we finally have solace in the truth that the majority of blacks in this country are second-class citizens and loved to be treated as such?” This writer goes on a racist rant about African-Americans and says that he doesn’t believe that one can be a White American without having racist qualities. He writes “I guess the majority of white people in this world would love to sugar coat the truth, deny that they know they are smarter than the average black man..”, and on and on. This response certainly supports the notion of White racism to which Jane Hill refers.
Data was collected from peers on the Hofstra University campus. They were asked the question “In reference to the Michael Richards racist gaffe, do you feel that he is a racist, or just made a mistake or error, or was performing bad comedy?”. Laura V. says “Oh yeah, he’s a legit racist and he’s trying to be funny and it’s just not classy at all, like the Nikki Minaj thing”. Here she must be referring to racist language used by Minaj in a video released of her fighting with Mariah Carey on American Idol. Kerri K. says “It’s not right. He should have responded differently. He shouldn’t have been acting like an asshole. He’s definitely a racist.” Chris P. said “Yeah he’s racist. Didn’t seem like a slip to me. I think he had a bad day or something. To be honest I think something’s wrong with him.” Samantha P. said “I’m not sure. I know that once that happened Seinfeld sales went up. It may have been for publicity but I think what he said was uncalled for and racist.” Debbie M. says “It’s a little much. You can’t joke like that as a comedian”. Anthony P. said “It think it’s a mix of things. He may be actually racist somewhat but it involves him doing an off the wall performance so he said it more than he normally would and might not hate them. Also, he’s known to be wacky I think, not that it justifies it.”.The data collected on campus was mostly in favor of looking at Michael Richards’ racist comments as an indication that he is a racist. Perhaps a sample of the responses of youth on a Long Island college campus is a more forward thinking sample than the average?
Denial of white racism is supported by the data collected for this research. The racist language is separated from the intention of the speaker, by use of excuses for such language. The way in which the media reports on the racial gaffes continues the racism. The Michael Richards case of racial gaffes is consistent with this. He spoke in a way that continues white racism. It was reported on in a way that continues white racism. It was responded to in a way that also carries on white racism. The use of ideological multiplicity masks the racist language as poor comedy, or simply anger released impulsively. This continues the denial of the speaker as being racist, and continues white racism, as a result.
Racism is normal and everyday and deeply entrenched in daily life. Jane Hill’s writing about folk theory of racism supports this truth and takes things for granted as the way they are. White Americans are the clear majority of race in this country, and will experience a different reality than minorities. Looking at folk theory of racism, which indicates that whites have an interest in continuing to view race as they do., we can see the linguistic ideologies that contribute to the perpetuation of racism. The language we use is indicating of the way in which we maintain this racist culture. White people as a majority race, continue this folk theory of white racism, and continue the dominance of power over minorities. It is only through the examination of our words and their true meanings that real change can come in this society, according to Jane Hill. She concludes her book The Everyday Language of White Racism by writing of the need for “Whites and people of color to respect one another, to talk to one another long enough to listen to objections, to deliver apologies…With effort, the everyday language of White racism that I have treated in these chapters may join slavery and official segregation as a part of American memory.” (Hill, p.182) One of the bloggers online, Katryna, wrote a very compelling post that said “Out of the depths of the heart, the mouth speaks. In the depths of the heart, I find racism.”
References Cited
AngryAussie: Angry 365 Days a Year
2006 Is Michael Richards Racist or Just a Shitty Comedian? http://angryaussie.wordpress.com/2006/11/23/is-michael-richards-racist, accessed December 1,2012
Carter, Bill
2006 Arts, Briefly; Richards to Meet With Patrons, But No Deal Is Guaranteed. New York Times, December 2, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage, accessed December 1, 2012
CBSNews.com
2010 ‘Kramer”Apologizes, Says He’s Not Racist. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-207_162-2201817.html, accessed November 30.
Hartsell, Carol
2012 Michael Richards Opens Up About Laugh Factory Tirade With Seinfeld On
‘Comedians In Cars’ Finale. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/Michael-
Richards-opens-up., accessed December 1.
Hill, Jane H.
2008 The Everyday Language of White Racism. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
NBCNews.com
Richards says anger not racism, sparked tirade. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/
Id/15816126/ns/today-entertainment, accessed December 1.
Pierce, Jeremy
Michael Richards’ Racist remarks http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/
2006/11/Richards-racist, accessed December 1.
Richardson, Kim
2006 So Shocking http://articles.chicagotrbune.com/200611-27/news/06,accessed December 1.
TMZ.com
“Kramer’s” Racist Tirade—Caught on Tape. http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/
Kramer’s-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape, accessed December1.